sign in sign up
<<
Home , Charlemagne, Einhard, Imperial Regalia, Marcellinus and Peter, Thietmar of Merseburg

Quidditas

Volume 30 Article 5

2009

Karlsgrab: The Site and Significance of ’s Sepulcher in

John F. Moffitt New Mexico State University, Emeritus

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra

Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Renaissance Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Moffitt, John. F (2009) "Karlsgrab: The Site and Significance of Charlemagne’s Sepulcher in Aachen," Quidditas: Vol. 30 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra/vol30/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quidditas by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Quidditas 30 (2009) 28 Karlsgrab: The Site and Significance of Charlemagne’s Sepulcher in Aachen John F. Moffitt New Mexico State University, Emeritus The intention of what follows is to clear up one of the mysteries still surround- ing the the Great, now most commonly known by his later appellation “Charlemagne.”1 Born in 742, the son of (ca. 714-768), Charlemagne ruled as king of the after 768; he additionally ruled as Em- peror of the West, from 800 until his death in 814. Sources in his time presented him as an emulator and successor of , and successive West- ern Emperors presented their own personae as successors of Charlemagne. In 1165, 350 years after Charlemagne’s death, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in- duced his anti-, Paschal III, to canonize Charlemagne as a saint, just as the Eastern Church canonized Constantine. The actual context of Charlemagne’s was, however, rather more political than spiritual.2

Posthumously Charlemagne’s life and deeds sometimes became the stuff of heroic legend.3 One of those traditional legends now raises the question of exactly where he was buried. As to the general (versus particular) location of his sepulcher, “Karlsgrab,” the early chronicles leave little doubt: the place of imperial interment was somewhere within the grounds of the royal complex at Aachen, then called Aquae grani (Fig. a). But where? As these early chronicles suggest, the place of imperial interment was most likely situated somewhere in the vicinity of the Chapel (Fig. a-2). Once that essentially topographical question of the original site of Char- lemagne’s sepulcher has been answered, then one may proceed to clarify equally the historical sources for, and the contextual signifi- cance of that particular manner of burial, and particularly one does

1 For standard biographies in English, see R. Winston, Charlemagne: From the Hammer to the Cross (New : Vintage, 1954); A. Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent (Berkeley: University of California Pres, 2004); M. Becher, Charlemagne (New Haven: Yale UP, 2005); for another perspective, see W. Braunfels, Karl der Große (Reinbek bei : Rohwohlt, 1991). 2 For the political machinations behind this event, see Robert Folz, “La chancellerie de Frédéric 1er et la canonisation de Charlemagne,” Le Moyen Âge, 70 (1964), 13-32.

3 For various aspects of the posthumous legend, see Robert Folz, Le souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne dans l’Empire germanique médiévale (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1950). Quidditas 30 (2009) 29 so by identifying the iconographic sources for the particular archi- tectural formal of the sepulcher.

Figure a: Ground plan of the royal complex at Aachen around 814 (dotted lines show the governing grid-plan based on a module with multiples of one Carolingian = 33 cm). Major components: (1) the Atrium (site of the Karlsgrab); (2) Royal Chapel (Pfalz- kapelle); (3) Royal Audience Hall (); demolished, now the site of Aachen’s City Hall (Rathaus). The earliest record of the Emperor’s burial is the spare ac- count recorded by the Emperor’s contemporary and biographer, . As this author simply informs us (in his Vita Karoli, writ- ten between 829 and 836), Charlemagne’s corpse had been “washed and ritually prepared for burial in the usual way”—corpus more sol- lemni lotum et curatum. Einhard continues, “amidst the great lam- entations of the entire population,” the corpse was then brought to one side of the church [the Palatine Chapel, or Pfalz- kapelle] and was interred there [ecclesiae in latum et humatum est]. At first, there had been some doubt as to where he should Quidditas 30 (2009) 30

be buried, for he had given no directions about this during his lifetime. In the end, it was agreed by all that no more suitable place could be found for his interment than the basilica that he had built himself at his own expense in that town [Aachen], for the love of God and of our Lord Christ, and in honor of His holy and ever-virgin Mother. He was buried there on the day of his death, and then a gilded arch [arcus . . . deaura- tus] with his portrait-statue [imagine] and an inscription was erected above the tomb [tumulus]. The inscription ran as fol- lows: “Beneath this funerary marker [conditorium] lies the body of Charles the Great, the Christian Emperor, who greatly expanded the kingdom of the Franks and reigned successfully for forty-seven years. He died when more than seventy years old in the 814th year of our Lord, in the seventh tax-year, on 28 .”4 After this brief statement we hear no more about the en- tombed Emperor Charles the Great for many years, that is, until af- ter the liminal year of 1000. According to a trio of subsequent ac- counts, it was precisely on the feast of Pentecost in the year 1000 in the former imperial capital at Aachen that the Holy Otto III (996-1002) then miraculously discovered (or “invented,” in- venit) the tomb with the enthroned corpse of his illustrious predeces- sor, the Emperor Charlemagne. Broadly viewed, the three surviv- ing accounts of the “invention” of Charlemagne’s tomb by the third Otto, his self-designated successor, belong themselves to an earlier literary convention. In one context, “invention,” the narratives most closely parallel the oft-told account of the momentous finding of the tomb of Christ. In this case, here we have a concrete link to the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, whom Charlemagne had taken as his own imperial role model. Acting upon the instructions of his mother, Saint Helena, to whom the whereabouts of the sainted site had come in a dream, Constantine then opportunely discovered (invenit) the actual tomb in ; subsequently, he ordered to be built over it the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (Fig. b).5 4 Einhard, , in Einhard and : Two Lives of Char- lemagne, tr. L. Thorpe (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981), 84. 5 For some idea of the later cultural and artistic importance of the Holy Sepulcher, re- putedly “found” by St. Helena, see J. F. Moffitt, “Anastasis-Templum: ‘Subject or Non- Subject’ in an Architectural Representation by Jacopo Bellini?” Paragone, XXXIII, no. 391 (1982), 3-24 (with ample bibliography). Quidditas 30 (2009) 31

Figure b: Ground plan of the architectural complex built by Constantine at Golgotha- Calvary from 326 to 335; left is (1) the Edicule, later covered by (2) the columned Ro- tunda of the Anastasis; directly east is (3) the great atrium, or “Court before the Cross”; this contains (4) the repository of the , and (5) the small chapel sheltering the Rock of Calvary (Golgotha); and east of that (6) the immense Martyrion Basilica (north at top of the plan). As is well known, in art as well as in governance, the pat- tern of renovatio pursued by Charlemagne was deliberately modeled upon that cultural “renewal” first initiated by Constantine the Great, the first specifically “Christian Emperor.” Constantine (ruled 306- 337) was, and for all the obvious reasons, treated both as a “saint” and as the basic model for all subsequent Christian rulers by Caro- lingian and subsequent medieval authors.6 Richard Krautheimer has even specified: “all Charlemagne’s political ideas, his conception of a new Empire, and of his own status were based upon the im- age of the first Christian emperor [Constantine]. Numerous [con- temporary] documents testify to the parallel which time and again was drawn between the Carolingian house and Constantine.”7 In 772 Pope Hadrian I specifically hailed Charlemagne as the “New Constantine.” This was but the first time that the Carolingian ruler

6 Whereas Constantine was, and for all the obvious reasons, treated as a “saint” and the basic model for all subsequent Christian rulers by medieval authors, some modern schol- ars have adopted a more skeptical, even negative, position; see, for instance, M. Grant, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times (New York: Scribner’s, 1994); see also K. Deschner, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1986), esp. chapter 5, examining the bloody career of “Saint Constantine.” 7 R. Krautheimer, “The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture,” Art Bul- letin, XXIV (1942), 36. Quidditas 30 (2009) 32 would be so titled.8 Immediately after he was crowned Roman Em- peror in on day, 800, by Pope Leo III, the seal of the imperial office bore this legend,Renovatio Romani Imperii. Ac- cording to François Ganshof, Charlemagne too “considered himself, as a Roman emperor, the successor to the Christian Roman emper- ors, of Constantine the Great and his heirs.”9 Another notable aspect, previously overlooked, is the sym- bolic significance of the specific date chosen by Otto III to com- mence his search for Charlemagne’s corpse, that is, Pentecost. As it turns out, this is the exact date, in the year 337, of the death of the Emperor Constantine the Great. In his Vita Constantini, the em- peror’s biographer, Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (ca. 263-339?), exactly fixed the moment of “Constantine’s death at noon on the Feast of the Pentecost.” Moreover, All of these events occurred during a most important festival, I mean the august and holy solemnity of Pentecost, which is a distinguished by a period of seven weeks, and it is sealed with that one day on which the holy Scriptures attest to the ascension of our common Savior into heaven, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit among men. In the course of this feast the Emperor [Constantine] received the privileges I have described; and on the last day of all [in his life], which one might justly call the feast of feasts, he was removed about mid-day to the presence of his God, leaving his mortal remains to his fellow mortals, and carrying into fellowship with God that part of his being which was capable of understanding and loving him. Such was the close of Constantine’s mortal life.10 Although these three historical accounts do not speculate upon Otto III’s putative motives in 1000 for seeking to discover Charlemagne’s by then legendary tomb,11 called the Karlsgrab, they 8 Ernst Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae. A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Medieval Ruler Worship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958), 93, n. 93. 9 F. Ganshof, in R. E. Sullivan, ed., The of Charlemagne: What Did it Sig- nify? (Boston: Heath, 1959), 39. 10 Eusebius, in P. Schaff and H. Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: E. Erdmans, 1961), v. I, 557.

11 See Knut Görich in M. Kramp, ed, Krönungen: Könige in Aachen—Geschichte und Mythos (: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2000), 275-82). Görich suggests that a likely motivation for Otto III’s retrieval of the Karlsgrab in May 1000 was his desire to in- augurate, precociously, the canonization of Charlemagne, which did occur later in 1165 under Frederick Bararossa. For more on this argument, see Görich’s “Otto III. öffnet das Karlsgrab in Aachen. Überlegungen zu Heiligenverehrung, Heiligsprechung und Tradi- tionsbildung,” Vortráge und Forschungen der Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Quidditas 30 (2009) 33 agree that the exact location of the sepulcher on the grounds of the Palatine Chapel at Aachen had been previously unknown. Thus the “finding” of it was an event taken, and in itself, to be inevitably “mi- raculous” in nature; the third Otto, who reigned from 996 to 1002, became known as “mirabilia mundi.” Otto alone seemed assured of the spot where excavations should take place, and so he went straightaway to a certain spot within the church premises where he directly ordered the dig to be- gin. As though ordained by providence, the excavations were im- mediately successful. The first (and briefest) account of the miracu- lous inventio of 1000 is by an exact contemporary of Otto, Bishop Thietmar of (975-1018): The Emperor was in some doubt as to where the bones of Charlemagne ought to be reposing; he [nevertheless] stealth- ily broke through the pavement [rupto clam pavimento, that is, in the atrium; see Fig. h], digging [foedere] just where these should have been, and they were indeed found right at the royal [haec in solio regio inventa sunt]. [Afterwards] he re- placed with the greatest reverence the golden cross, which had been hung around the neck of him [Charlemagne], as well as the preserved portions of his vestments.12 Besides being considerably longer, the other two accounts differ from Thietmar’s inasmuch as they interject a much greater sense of drama. This heightened dramatic presentation befitted the nature of the miraculous epiphany on Pentecost, a feast-day com- memorating the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the devoutly awed Disciples of Christ on a Sunday, and fifty days after the first , the one historically marking His ascent to heaven. Even though one of the other two chroniclers, Adémar de Chabannes, was himself ap- parently not an eye-witness (rather a later compiler), their comple- mentary accounts both provide the circumstantial, putatively “ocu- lar,” evidence visibly linking together the miraculously preserved effigy of the dead, but still highly venerated Emperor—before whom the stunned witnesses genuflected, as though to a saint. Geschichte, 46 (1998), 381-430 (see esp. 389-92, 398-406, 410-20, 429). 12 Thietmar, Theitmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon, in R. Holtzmann, ed., Monu- menta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, IX (Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlag, 1955), 185-7. Quidditas 30 (2009) 34 The second account is by Count Otto of Lomello, clearly stated here to have been a participant, and so a privileged eyewit- ness to the spectacular encounter. In his report (transcribed in the Chronicon Novaliciense), the following, highly picturesque details regarding the epiphany of the dead Charlemagne are given: After many years of study, the Emperor Otto III came to the spot where it had been adjudged by him that the [remains of the] entombed Charlemagne rested. Thus he finally came down to the site of that sepulcher [ad locum sepulture]; accompanied by two bishops and Count Otto of Lomello, the Emperor [Otto III] himself was the fourth member of the party. Count Lomello himself narrated the matter: “Thus we entered into that place and we directly went to Charlemagne. He was, however, not lying down, such as is the custom with the bodies of other deceased persons [non enim jacebat ut mos est aliorum defunctorum corpora]; he was instead sitting upon a throne–and just as a living person might [sed in quandam cathedram ceu vivus residebat]! His head was regally covered by a of gold [cor- onam auream erat coronatus] and his hands were covered with gloves, through which the nails had proceeded to grow, and in one hand he held a scepter [sceptrum. . . . tenens in manibus]. There was, however, placed above his body a stoutly built, cot- tage-like structure made from granite and marble [erat autem supra se tugurium ex calce et marmoribus valde compositum]. We had to break a hole through this structure in order to reach his body. Once we had arrived at the place where his body was found, we began to perceive the strongest odor [that of the “bal- sam and musk” described elsewhere by Adémar]. Immediately, we fell to worshipping him by genuflecting profoundly adora[ - vimus ergo eum statim poplitibus flexis ac jenua]. The Emperor Otto then covered his body with white vestments, cut his nails, and repaired all that was in need of it around him. None of the parts of his body had, however, de- cayed in the slightest [nil vero ex artibus suis putresendo adhuc defecerat], even though a little bit off the end of his nose was missing; this the Emperor ordered restored with a piece of gold. After [finally] removing one of the teeth from his mouth, the Emperor then had the hut-like architectural covering rebuilt as it had been [reaedificato tuguriolo], and then he left it behind.”13 ‡The imagery of Otto III personally tending the body of the saint is both relevant and instructive for the construction of a new tomb for Charlemagne as a site of imperial authority. The tradition 13 Otto of Lomello, Chronicon Novaliciense, in MGH: Scriptores, VII, 106. Quidditas 30 (2009) 35 of the “invention” of saints’ and bodies was well established in medieval hagiography. Within the narrative of a saint’s vita, revisit- ing the tomb to ascertain the incorrupt state of that saint’s body was often crucial to proving the individual’s sanctity and the validity of the miracles that occurred at the tomb. ’s life of the holy Ethyl- dreda, an , former queen, and twice-married perpetual virgin, contained a lengthy description of the condition of her body when her tomb was re-opened sixteen years after the saint’s death. Eth- yldreda’s bones were scheduled for translation to the church and their encasement in a new coffin. Upon reopening the tomb, the abbess, Ethyldreda’s sister Sexburga, and a few others proceeded to wash the body and prepare it for its reburial; the saint’s suc- cessors not only found the saint’s corpse perfectly preserved and uncorrupted, but also noticed that it had been improved in death; a tumor that a had treated, but not cured, at the end of Eth- yldreda’s life had healed almost completely, with only the traces of a scar remaining.14 In hagiography, the inventio (discovery) or translation of a saint’s body illustrated the powerful connections possible between the holy corpse and its “inventor;” the uncorrupted body proved the individual’s sanctity and verified the authenticity of the tomb. Such moments of “translation” involved more than merely the movement of the saint; they transferred the power and authority over the relics to the new caretaker, the “inventor” of the holy tomb and corpse, appropriating the process of the inventio as a new funeral and a new locus of power for its celebrants. Both Carolingian and Ottonian rulers were familiar with the tremendous symbolic force of the corporeal engagement with saints’ relics. Einhard’s Translation of the Relics of

14 The section marked by ‡ at beginning and end is added by Katherine A. Clark, Assis- tant Professor of History at State University of New York, College at Brockport. Professor Clark was a pre-publication reader of this article, recommending its publication. One of her comments suggested Professor Moffitt might point out how Otto III’s actions mirrored those of the tradition of revisiting, and re-opening saint’s tombs. When informed of Pro- fessor Moffitt’s death, and asked by the editor to flesh out this section, she kindly agreed to do so. For Bede’s account of the re-opening of Ethyldreda’s tomb see J.A Giles, The Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847), 204- 207. Ethydreda also is known as Ethythryth. Quidditas 30 (2009) 36 provided many anecdotes in which both Einhard and his assistants observed the handling of the exhumed relics and read the saints’ holy intentions through the signs they manifested. Einhard spent the later years of reign in devotion and service to the saints, acquiring saints’ relics from Rome for use in the churches Einhard built on lands which Louis the Pious had granted to him and to his wife, Emma.15 Einhard related that even when stealing relics from their Roman resting place near the Via Labicana, the - hunters did so with an invocation to Jesus and the “holy martyrs,” and “raised the martyr’s body [Marcellinus] with the greatest rever- ence, as was fitting, wrapped it in a pure muslim cloth, and gave it to the deacon to carry and hold.”16 Einhard took great pains to place the saints in the resting places they desired, including observing a miracle in which they in- dicated they did not want to remain in a certain church, and fashion- ing new coffins for the saints, which in turn generated a new miracle in which the old caskets were filled with a miraculous liquid.17 In the Ottonian period, the bishop Egbert’s elevation of the rediscov- ered bones of St. Celsus typified what Thomas Head described as that powerful Ottonian bishop’s archbishop’s “innovative flair for drama, as well as his innate appreciation for the material, indeed corporal character of relics.”18 The anecdote from the Chronicon Novalicense describing Otto III’s tending of the incorrupt body of Charlemagne thus en- gaged the language of hagiography and applied it to the holy “fam- ily” of Charlemagne and Otto (as emperors) in the construction of the Karlsgrab. The anecdote suggests a filial piety that bound the two houses—bitter enemies in Charlemagne’s own time—through 15 At -Steinback and ultimately at Mülheim (later renamed ); Da- vid Appelby, “Einhard, Translation of the Relics of Sts. Marcellnus and Peter,” in Medieval Hagiography, ed. Thomas Head (Routledge: London, 2000), 199-200. See also Julia H.M. Smith, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, v. 13 (2003), 55-77. 16 “. . . invocato domino nostro Iuesu Christo et adoratis sanctis martyribus . . . Quod ut par erat cum summa veneratione suscipientes levant et munda sindone involutum dia- cono ferendum atque servandum tradunt,” Translatio et Miracula SS. Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo, Monumenta, in Monumenta Scriptores in folio v. 15, 1.4, 241-241; origi- nally translated by Barrett Wendel, ed., Appelby in, Medieval Hagiography, 208. 17 Ibid., Translatio 1.10, 243-4. 18 Thomas Head, “Art and Artifice in Ottonian Trier,” Gesta, v. 36 (1977), 71. Quidditas 30 (2009) 37 the shared bond of rulership. And it must be remembered that Otto III did descend from Charlemagne through his paternal great-grand- mother, Mathilda, wife of and mother of Otto the Great. The passage from Chronicon Novaliciense concludes by es- tablishing a clear link between Otto’s caretaking and the new archi- tecture that Charlemagne’s Ottonian successors would introduce.‡ After [finally] removing one of the teeth from his mouth, the Emperor then had the hut-like architectural covering rebuilt [reaedificato turgu- riolo], and then he left it behind.19 In this case, and in the context of other evidence that will be later introduced, it may be argued that the phrase reaedificato tuguriolo included the “rebuilding” of a domed canopy that was placed over the original “hut-like” Edicule (Fig. c). Figure c: Adémar de Chabannes, “Hic requiescit Karolus imperator.” Edicule over the Tomb of Charlemagne rebuilt in 1000,” pen drawing, ca. 1020-1034. Vatican Library (Ms. Lat. 263, fol. 235r).

That earlier “little house” built over the original burial site of Charlemagne, in its turn, probably closely resembled the architec- tural symbol placed upon Charlemagne’s coinage, where it impres- sively signifies “the Christian religion” (Fig. d). The latter motif, a 19 Chronicon Novaliciense, 106. Quidditas 30 (2009) 38 diminutive tempietto with a pedimented porch containing a Greek cross, as has been recently demonstrated, intentionally duplicates a famous sacred structure, namely the architectural covering, an “Edi- cule,” reverently placed over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem by Constantine the Great around 326 (Fig. e).20

Figure d: of Charlemagne, ca. 806, reverse. A temple front with a cross enclosed in the pedimented porch, representing the “Edicule” erected by Constantine the Great in 326 over the Tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. The structure now is used to symbolize “Christiana Religion.” The obverse bears a portrait of Charlemagne with the inscription “Karolus Imp. Aug.”

Figure e: Constantine’s Edicule in Jerusalem depicted on a marble plaque from a Syrian church, ca. 600. Washington DC, Dumbarton Oaks Collection. 20 For this iconographic identification, see J. Moffitt, “Charlemagne’s Denarius, Con- stantine’s Edicule, and the Vera Crux,” Quidditas, 28 (2007), 23-60. Quidditas 30 (2009) 39 The final, also the longest, account of the miraculous epiph- any of the erect, enthroned and crowned, incorruptible corpse of Charlemagne in 1000 is provided by Adémar de Chabannes (ca. 988-1034).21 Adémar properly begins his lengthy account with a relation of the interment of Charlemagne in the year 814. At that time, at least so we are told here, the majestic body of the enthroned Emperor had already been itself deliberately converted into a kind of “reliquary-effigy,” particularly so since it was put together so as to contain a precious piece of the True Cross—et in [ea] lignum Crucis positum—presumably the relic discovered five centuries ear- lier in Jerusalem by Helena, the sainted mother of Constantine the Great. According to Adémar’s description, Thus the most reverent and glorious Emperor Charlemagne died whilst wintering in Aachen [Aquisgranus], where he was buried. This occurred in his seventy-first year; he ruled for for- ty-seven years in all, forty-three in , but as Emperor [only] fourteen in all. He excelled in all human deeds. On the 15th of [814], he was buried in Aachen at that Basilica of the Mother of God [sepultus Aquis in basilica Dei genitricis], which he himself had ordered built. Next comes a detailed description of the corpse as it had supposedly been arranged in 814, and again depicting it as be- ing enthroned and placed within a vaulted , and Adémar also describes the emperor as having appeared to Otto’s entourage as though he was still living: His body, after having been embalmed [aromatizatum] and positioned upon his golden throne [in sede aurea sedens posi- tus est], had been placed within a rounded crypt [in curvatura sepulchri]. Strapped to his side was a golden , and a golden -book was clasped in his hands [resting] upon his knees [evangelium aureum tenens in manibus et genibus]. His shoulders were leaning against the throne [reclinatis humeris 21 Adémar is a controversial figure; for a detailed analysis of his occasional dubiety, see R. Landes, Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Adémar of Charbanne, Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1995). For more on the problems associated with medieval texts relating historical events, with those possibly also generically attending the three texts dealing with the finding of the body of Charlemagne, see Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princ- eton UP, 1996). Quidditas 30 (2009) 40

in cathedra]. His head, linked by a golden chain to the [diadema], was proudly erect [capite honeste erecto]. A piece of the True Cross [lignum Crucis] was deposited within the dia- dem. They had filled the crypt with aromatic spices: pigments, balsam and musk [pigmentis, balsamo et musgo] and treasures. The body was dressed in imperial and robes [indumentis imperialibus] and a veil [sudarium] was placed on his face un- der the diadem. The scepter and shield of gold, blessed by Pope Leo [III], were placed before him, and then his sepulcher was once again sealed [et sigillatum est sepulchrum ei].22 But how did Otto III come to know exactly where to look for the miraculously preserved corpse? According to Adémar, by means of a dream [per somnum] the Emperor Otto was ad- vised [monitus est] to raise the body of the Emperor Charle- magne, who had been buried in Aachen [quod Aquis humatus est]. Nevertheless, since it had been obliterated by time, the ex- act place where it lay had long since been forgotten. After fast- ing for three days, [Otto] then found him in the place [inventus est eo loco] perceived by the emperor in his dream [quem per visum cognoverat imperator]. He [Charlemagne] was found seated upon a golden throne [sedens in aurea cathedra] that had been emplaced within an arched crypt [intra arcuatam spelun- cam] built before [or in front of] the basilica dedicated to Mary [infra basilicam Marie]. His head bore a crown made of pur- est gold [coronatus corona ex auro purissimo]. The body was itself found to be uncorrupted [et ipsum corpus incorruptum in- ventum est]. After being raised, it was exhibited to the populace [quod levatum populis demonstratum est]. Adémar’s narrative concludes with the subsequent re-inter- ment in the year 1000 of the miracle-working and saintly Emper- or—but now within the basilica (Fig. a-2 above): The body of Charlemagne was then re-interred in the right [or southern] transept of the basilica, behind the altar dedicated to St. . A magnificent golden crypt was erected directly above it [et cripta aurea super illud mirifica est fabri- cata]; this spot soon became renowned as being a place of many signs and miracles [multisque signis et miraculis clarescere cepit]. There was, however, no thought of a solemn feast day to be put aside for him [Charlemagne], that is, besides the usual rituals [communi more] for the anniversaries of the dead.23 22 Adémar, Chronicon, in Adémar de Chavannes: Chronique, ed. J. Chavanon (Paris: Picard, 1897), 105. 23 Adémar, Chronicon, 153-54. Brief mention should be made here of the “Prosepina Sarcophagus,” now exhibited at Aachen and long supposed to have been the resting place of Charlemagne’s remains. If it had ever served that function, then I believe that employ- Quidditas 30 (2009) 41 As evidence for the historical symbiosis of Charlemagne to Constantine, there is another striking convergence encountered in the manner of Charlemagne’s burial at Aachen, and this was a pur- poseful act of material mimesis (and like other points raised here, this too has gone unnoticed). After his death in 337, Constantine became, as Philippe Ariès points out, “the first layman to be buried almost inside a church,” namely, under the pavement of “the ‘vesti- bule,” or uncovered entrance court, also known as the “paradisum.” Hence, it was Constantine who had set the imperial precedent for being buried in atrio, in his case, within the forecourt (atrium) of the Church of the Twelve Apostles (also called the Apostoleion or Hagii Apostoloi) in .24 It is additionally recognized that it was already a Merovingian tradition that, for the design of their royal mausoleums, they followed “le modèle de Saints-Apôtres de Constantinople.”25 The Constantinian tomb-model was also famil- iar to the Carolingians who succeeded the Merovingians. We learn the details from Constantine’s biographer, Euse- bius. In his Vita Constantini (IV, 60), the Greek had ob- served that Constantine “had, in fact, made a choice of this very spot in the prospect of his own death . . . and, having long before secretly formed this resolution, he now consecrated this church to the Apos- tles.” And the end result (IV, 71) was “that the earthly tabernacle of this thrice blessed soul, according to his own earnest wish, was per- ment only happened after the re-interment in 1000. Perhaps the first mention of this late- classical era work is as a tumulus marmoreus, and is found in a document dating to the reign of Frederick Barbarossa (1152-90); for this description, see T. Lindner, Die Fabel von der Bestattung Karls des Grossen (Aachen: Cremer, 1893), 63, concluding that “ist es nicht möglich dass der Sarkophag [served to contain] die Leiche Karls.” 24 P. Ariès, The Hour of Our Death (New York: Knopf, 1981), 52. For the term par- adisum standing for the atrium, see J. Fleming and H. Honour, “Paradise,” The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), 165-6, the entry also notes that the atrium of St. Peter’s in Rome was so designated. 25 A. Dierkens, “Autour de la tombe de Charlemagne: Considérations sur les sépultures et les funérailles des souverains carolingiens et des members de leur famille,” Byzantion, 61 (1991), 156-80. The quotation is from p.163. Quidditas 30 (2009) 42 mitted to share the monument of the Apostles.”26 It is also of to point out that Eusebius also states (Vita, IV, 69) that the Roman Senate, learning of Constantine’s death, had ordered “paintings to his memory” to be placed in an unnamed building in Rome (probably the Lateran ). As recalled by Eusebius, “the design of these pictures embodied a representation of heaven itself, and depicted the Emperor reposing [meaning ‘enthroned’] in an ethereal mansion above the celestial vault.”27 This textual image bears a generic re- semblance to the enthroned disposition of Charlemagne’s body as it appeared in 1000, and as described above by eyewitnesses. And, a translation made by Rufinus, Eusebius’s Vita Constantini was well known in northern before the Carolingian period.28 In his multi-volume Epitome of History (ca. 1120), the Byz- antine scholar John Zonaras recorded the burial of Constantine in atrio at entrance to the Apostoleion. In De topographia Constanti- nopoleos (1561) by Petrus Gyllius (Pierre Gilles, 1490-1555), the first truly scholarly description of the Imperial capitol, Gyllius be- gins with a description of the Apostoleion: Around the church there was a fine court lying open to the air. The por ticos that enclosed it stood on a quadrangle.” Later, however, “Justinian [ruled 527-65] ordered it to be taken down [and] nothing remains of this church at pres- ent. No, not even its foundations.

Next, Gyllius refers to Zonaras’ description of the final rest- ing place of the first Christian emperor:

The body of Constantine, lying in a golden coffin, was brought into the city by his intimate friends and was buried in the of the Church of the Apostles. This mausoleum, Zonaras says, was built by Constantius II for the interment of his father.29 26 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, in Schaff and Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, I, 555, 558. 27 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, IV, 558. The Greek text is transcribed in S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 32, n. 173; for an analysis of the iconographic development of the pictorial motif of “The Emper- or Enthroned on the Globe,” including the one cited by Eusebius, MacCormack, 127-32. 28 For the fame of Eusebius among the Carolingians, see G. Henderson, Early Medieval: Style and Civilisation (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 214-16. 29 P. Gilles, The Antiquities of Constantinople, ed. R. G. Musto (New York: Italica Press, 1988), 172-3. Gilles erroneously claimed “Zonaras never read Eusebius” in so identify- ing the final burial site. But Eusebius, who died around 339, could not (of course) have known of Constantius’ later, most likely after 340, re-interment in atrio of the body of his illustrious father.

Quidditas 30 (2009) 43 According to the old descriptions, the Mausoleum of Con- stantine erected by his son Constantius alongside the Apostoleion was domed and had a central plan; it was called a heroon or ompha- los. Constantius was interred there in 361.30 A likely model for the tomb was the octagonal, domed, Mausoleum of Diocletian (d. 313), also erected in an atrium within Diocletian’s palace at Spalato (the modern Split, in ) where part of it still stands, as later, in the seventh century, converted into an octagon-plan church (Fig. f).31

Figure f: Diocletian’s octagonal mausoleum, now part of the of St. Doimus at Split, Croatia. Five centuries later, and also following the precedent set

30 For a detailed discussion of the Mausoleum of Constantine built by Constantius II, see J. Arce, Funus Imperatorum: Los funerales de los emperadores romanos (Madrid: Alianza, 1988), 110-13, 123, 161. 31 On this structure, see Arce, 102-4, fig. 33. Quidditas 30 (2009) 44 in 768 by his father Pepin, whose body had also been interred in front of the Abbey-Church of St. Denis (ante limina basilicae),32 Charlemagne was himself also to be buried beneath the pavement of an atrium, in this case, under the forecourt of his Palatine Cha- pel at Aachen.33 The geography of the royal complex, which has since been largely altered, may be best understood by reference to a ground plan of the entire palace complex (see Fig. a above) and to a model recreating its appearance at time of Charlemagne (Fig. g).

Figure g: Model of the appearance of the royal complex at Aachen around 814; the atrium is in the foreground. Aachen, Burg Frankenberg Museum. At the top (that is, to the north) there had been erected the Royal Hall, a Sala Regis or Aula Palatina (see Fig. a-3 above); it was built in 788, and as consciously modeled on Constantine’s Palatine Hall in near-by Trier. From this Palatine Hall (later demolished and now the site of the Aachen City Hall (Rathaus), a covered colon- nade then ran directly south to the Palace Chapel (Pfalzkapelle, built

32 For three Latin texts describing Pepin’s interment in front of St. Denis (extra in introitu valvarum) see H. Beumann, “Grab und Thron Karl des Grossen in Aachen,” in W. Braun- fels, ed., Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, v. IV, Das Nachleben (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1967-8), 9-38; see esp. notes 147, 151, 152.

33 For this conclusion see L. Hugot, “Baugeschichtlisches zum Grab Karls des Grossen,” Aachener Kunstblätter, 52 (1984), 13-28. Quidditas 30 (2009) 45 ca. 792-805 (see Fig. a-2 above), and an immense, rectangular and high-walled atrium ran due west of Charlemagne’s chapel (see Fig. a-1 above, and Fig. h below). The chronicler Thietmar, the bishop of Merseburg, mentions that, besides a “public throne” sited in the atrium, there was another thronus regalis that was later placed within the chapel, in the upper gallery. But the fact that the original site of Charlemagne’s sepul- cher also was within the atrium—and not within the chapel (where it was indeed placed after 1000)—was not recognized until the mid- twentieth century when the results of the archeological investiga- tions of Felix Kreusch were published34 (see Fig. h below). In the course of directing excavations in the now completely altered space of the original atrium, Kreusch (then the Dombaumeister in Aachen) located the foundations for matching, hemispherical recessions— exedrae, each with a radius of over three meters; these faced one another in the long-since demolished north and south walls (Mau- erwerk). These niche-like structures were likely the remains of the footings for a transverse narthex (Quernarthex) erected directly west of the massive, concave or niche-like, entrance-way presently leading into the Palatine Chapel. According to Leo Hugot (another Dombaumeister), directly at the entrance to the Pfalzkapelle, there was originally erected an augmentum (a portico, Laube in German) with two columns in antis supporting an arch crowned with a pitched roof.35 Together, the three-part ensemble at the east end of the atri- um formed a trichoros, functioning like a frons scenae (theatrical backdrop) for the ritual enactment of imperial dramas.36 Axial lines radiating at right-angles from the twin, north- south niches flanking the similarly recessed church façade pointed to a spot on the east-to-west, mid-axial line of the capacious rectan- gular forecourt, measuring 17 meters wide and running 36 meters from east to west. This convergence (“X” on Fig. h) marks the spot 34 See F. Kreusch, “Ueber Pfalzkapelle und Atrium zur Zeit Karls des Großen,” in Dom zu Aachen, Beiträge zur Baugeschichte, IV (1958), 56-151, and his, “Kirche, Atrium und Porticus der Aachener Pfalz,” in W. Braunfels, ed., Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, v. III, Karolingische Kunst, (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1965), 463-533. 35 See Hugot, 1984, Abb. 18: “Rekonstruierte Laube in Aachen.” 36 For a pictorial reconstruction of the scenographic trichoros ensemble, see Kreusch, Abb. 1. Quidditas 30 (2009) 46 that has been identified as the site of Charlemagne’s “public regal throne”[publicus thronus regalis]. Yet another ceremonial throne was placed inside the chapel, where it can still be seen on the mezza- nine floor (but this one was evidently in place only after 93637), and a third throne was placed in the Aula, or audience hall, to the north (Fig. a-3 above).38 Notker Balbulus, another early biographer of Charlemagne, briefly described the ritual perambulations between one throne and the other as follows: Our glorious Emperor Charlemagne had the habit of going to lauds at night in a long flowing cloak, the use and the very name of which are now forgotten. When the early-morning hymns were over, he would then return to his room and dress himself in his imperial robes ready for the morning functions. All the churchmen used to come ready robed to these services, which took place just before dawn, either within the church itself or in an anteroom, which was then called the outer court.39 The region of the “public throne” was also the location with- in the open-air atrium that had evidently been chosen for the subter- ranean chamber—the Karlsgrab—which contained the enthroned body of Charlemagne, and such as this was to be discovered on Pentecost in 1000 (and such as that dramatic encounter has been de- scribed in detail). As summarized by Helmut Beumann,40 according to these findings, the publicus thronus regalis (marked with an “X” in Fig. h) was placed on an invisible line drawn due west from the mid-axis of the church and six meters into the atrium.41 The tomb 37 L. Hugot, Der Dom zu Aachen: Ein Führer (Aachen: Einhard, 1993), 27-29 (this throne was apparently erected for the coronation of Otto I, but Hugot also notes that this most likely replaced an earlier throne, with no base, that had actually been used by Char- lemagne). For the physical evidence supporting the conclusion that the assembly of the marble “Karlsthron” is most likely (at least in part) of a post-Carolingian or Ottonian date, see Kramp, ed., Krönungen: Könige in Aachen, 38, 219-20, 236. 38 For the various sites of the royal , see Beumann, “Grab und Thron,” 25-31. In note 144, Beumann cites the specialized studies dealing with this problem. 39 Notker, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, 128-9. 40 For the specifics following on the site of the Karlsgrab, see again Beumann, “Grab und Thron,” esp. 29, 35. 41 Writing in 2000 (Kramp, ed., Krönungen: Könige in Aachen, 182), Max Kerner simi- larly affirms that “dieses Karlsgrab nicht in engeren Innenraum der Marienkirche, sondern an deren Schwelle, im vorgelagerten Atrium, zu suchen sein, wo spätestens seit 936 auch ein (wenn nicht gar der heute noch erhaltene) Karlsthron Aufnahme gefunden hat.” Quidditas 30 (2009) 47 (marked with an “O” in Fig. h) was then placed upon the same axis- line, but some three meters further to the west from the throne; the grave itself is estimated to have been around 2.3 meters long.42

Figure h: Ground plan of the atrium originally placed in front of the Palatine Chapel, showing the approximate location of the “public regal throne” (marked by “X”) and the Karlsgrab (marked by “O”). North at the top. According to the current consensus of archaeologically in- formed opinion regarding the ceremonial ensemble in the atrium,43 both the grave (and its arched superstructure, sometimes called the archisolium) and the adjacent throne (a solium, with a baldacchino covering) were torn down, razed to the ground, during the Norman occupation of Aachen in 881-82.44 However, perhaps quite soon af-

42 To sum up Beumann’s argument in “Grab und Thron,” 35: “ . . . auf der Mittelachse er Kirche . . . und dicht beim Mittelpunkt der Exedra [im Atrium] einen Ort [war] der ur- prüngliche Standort des Karlsthrones [und] liegt etwa 6 m westlich. . . . Das Grab selbst würde bei einer Länge von etwa 2,30 m mit seiner westlichen Begrenzung noch immer von der Rückseite eines dort stationierten Thrones mehr als 3 m entfernt sein.” 43 For instance, according to Alain Dierkens (“Autour de la tombe de Charlemagne,” 178), “solium désigne en fait la construction qui abritait le trône [des carolingiens] et qui, l’augmentum placé devant le Westbau carolingien [de la chapelle], s’avançait légèrement dans l’atrium, à l’intersection des axes du Westbau et de deux absides semi-circulaires latérales. C’est sous cette ‘laube’ qui aurait aussi abrité un autel, qu’aurait été enterré Charlemagne: sa tombe, ante limina, serait donc l’équivalent de celle du Pépin le Bref à Saint-Denis. . . . Sous le Westbau actuel, juste derrière la laube, a été retrouvée une fosse de grande taille (2, 55 sur 1, 10 mètres), qui convient exactement au sarcophage [dit de Proserpine] conservé (2,10 x 0,64 mètres). . . . La tombe de Charlemagne, surmontée d’un arc doré (celui de l’augmentum) avait été creusée devant l’entrée de l’église du palais.” For further details on the placement of the Karlsgrab in the atrium at Aachen, see again Beumann, “Grab und Thron,” esp. 9, 29-30, 34-5. 44 Citing old documents, Dierkens (, p. 176, n. 74), notes that, in 881, the Palatine Chapel at Aachen had been turned into a “horse stable” by the Norman invaders. Quidditas 30 (2009) 48 ter that disastrous event, it appears that the solium (but evidently not the archisolium) had been re-erected. Thietmar, in an account of the Emperor Otto I receiving in 936 an acclamation from the nobles in the atrium, declares that the emperor was then observed sitting upon an imperial throne (sedes imperialis), quite possibly on the same site as Charlemagne’s “public throne,” just before the coronation ceremony began in the church behind him.45 **Several scholars have noted how the Ottonians associ- ated themselves with Charlemagne. For instance, Rudolf Köpke and Ernst Dümmler refer to Otto’s coronation at Aachen as an event meant to reference Charlemagne. His son, Otto II also was crowned king at Aachen in 961, as was his grandson Otto III, whose corona- tion there at the age of three was on Christmas Day, 983, perhaps a reference to Charlemagne’s imperial coronation at Rome on that same day in 800. Carl Erdmann notes that father, son, and grandson, at least as described by Ottonian scholars like Hroswitha of Gander- sheim and Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II), stressed the notion of their “renewal” (renovatio) of the , bringing into mind the succession from Constantine to Charlemagne to the Ottonian monarchs. Ottonian scholars and ecclesiastical advisors to the Ottonian monarchs were steeped in the works and world-views passed down to them from Carolingian scholars such as and Einhard. Probably Gerbert of Aurillac, tutor to Otto III, took the name Sylvester II when becoming pope to stress the comparison between himself and Otto III to Constantine and . We know Sylvester II based certain claims to territory upon the so-called (forged in the eighth century), and that Carolingian ecclesiastics were aware of the Donation. In- deed, the Donation probably influenced the territorial and political rights granted Stephen II and Hadrian I in the Donations of Pepin (754) and Charlemagne (774). Walter Ullman notes that Otto III felt a particular attachment to Charlemagne, including an image clearly meant to suggest Charlemagne on Otto’s imperial seal.46** 45 Beumann, “Grab und Thron,” 25, and giving Thietmar’s Latin text, n. 118. 46 The section marked by ** at beginning and end is added by James H. Forse, editor of Quidditas 30 (2009) 49 Nonetheless, by 1000, almost 200 years after his interment, re-establishing the original location of Charlemagne’s tomb obvi- ously required a diligent search on the part of Emperor Otto III. In any event, we now know that the historical precedent for the place- ment of the grave of Charles the Great had been set centuries before by the interment in Constantinople of Constantine “in atrio.” Although it has long since vanished, we may now attempt a reconstruction of the superstructure erected above the tomb of Charlemagne as it might have looked in the year 1000. Our only surviving pictorial evidence is a drawing done around 1030 by Adé- mar of Chabannes47 (see Fig. c above). Here the chronicler of the discovery of the body of Charlemagne in 1000 had sketched the Edicule containing the tomb, and just as that structure was explicitly identified by Adémar with an inscription:Hic requiescit Karolus im- perator—“Here lies the Emperor Charles.” Shown rising above a three-stepped plinth, and given its symbolic importance, the domed grave-marker is drawn in disproportionate scale to the surrounding architecture; the graphic result is that the outsize tomb serves to iden- tify the diminutive and only schematically rendered church, rather than vice versa. Helmut Beumann finds this drawing to be further confirmation for his argument that “Charlemagne was buried at the entrance of his church,” that is, “in atrio” (see Fig. h above).48 Quidditas, to flesh out a theme Professor Moffitt raised, but was unable to address before his death. On the of Otto I and II at Aachen as creating links to Charlemagne, see, for example Rudolf Köpke and Ernst Dümmler, Kaiser Otto der Grosse (Darmstadt: Wissenshaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962, rpt. of 1876 ed.), 27-38, 322-3. On renovatio see Carl Erdmann, “Das ottonische als Imperium Romanum,” Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters, 6 (1943), 421-6; Walter Ullman, The Growth of Papal Gov- ernment in the (London: Methuen, 1963), 229-246; Karl J. Leyser, Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. Ottonian (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1979), 77-85. Henry Meyr-Harting, Church and Cosmos in Early Ottonian . The View from (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007), 6-8, 18-21, 177-8, stresses the influence of Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne on Ottonian scholars and their blending of classical and Carolingian learning, and Otto I’s focus on Aachen as Charlemagne’s imperial center. On the “Donations” see New Schaff_Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), v. 1: 50-1, v. 3: 14, 439-6, 484-5, v. 8: 333-4. For the importance of Carolingian scholars to Ottonian ecclesiastics, and how these figures pursued common goals, see James H. Forse, “Religious Drama and Ecclesiastical Reform in the Tenth Century,” Early Theatre, 5 (2002), 47-70. 47 The author of the sketch was identified by Danielle Gaborite-Chopin, “Un dessin de l’église d’Aix-la-Chapelle par Adémar de Chabannes dans un manuscript de la Biblio- thèque Vaticane,” Cahiers archéologiques, 14 (1964), 233-5. 48 Beumann, “Grab und Thron,” 36-38: “Die einer solchen Darstellung zugrunde lieg- Quidditas 30 (2009) 50 I argue that the Karlsgrab represented a specific type of fu- nerary edifice. Its structure, as described by Otto of Lomello, was in the shape of a turgurium, or a turguriolum, or “little hut.” Another name for such a structure is Edicule, or “little house.” In the general sense, we find in the spatial arrangement encountered in- Charle magne’s Pfalzkapelle, where a sacred subterranean tomb is covered by a stone canopy and placed before a basilica, the usual pattern of the medieval martyrium, or martyr’s tomb. These commemorative structures, the objects of pilgrimages, were also called aediculae, meaning “little houses.”49 The archetype for all those structures was, of course, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.50 Given Charlemagne’s well-documented reverence for, and emulation of, the first Christian emperor, it is highly significant in this context that the primordial prototype for this venerable edifice had been constructed by Constantine the Great directly above the subterranean tomb of Christ, which he piously enclosed within a small-scaled, colonnaded and circular monument, a tugurium-like tomb-covering then known as the Edicule51 (see Fig. e above). As has been recently pointed out, this is the same structure that Charlemagne had placed upon his silver denarius (ca. 806), where it emblematically represents “the Christian religion,” Chris- tiana religio.52 (see Fig. d above). This initially modest building formed the exemplary spiritual core of what was later known to Eu- ropean as the Santo Sepolcro or Sainte Sépulcre—and to the Byzan- tines as the Anastasis (“Resurrection” or “Ascent”)—an architectur- ende Information könnte besagt haben, daß Karl der Große vor der Schwelle seiner Kirche bestattet worden ist.” Beumann also notes: “die Zeichnung selbst so gut wie keine Ähnlich- keit mit dem Aachener Bau erkennen läßt.” 49 For this archetypal architectural genre, see A. Grabar, Martyrium: Rechereches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique, 2 vs. (Paris: Collège de , 1943-46). 50 For the post-Constaninian evolution of the Santo Sepulcro, see J. A. Ramírez, Con- strucciones ilusorias: Arquitecturas descritas, arquitecturas pintadas (Madrid: Alianza, 1983), 56-8. 51 For complete details on the Edicule and the rest of the Constantinian complex erected at Golgotha, see M. Biddle, The Tomb of Christ (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 2000). 52 See Moffitt, “Denarius.” Quidditas 30 (2009) 51 ally evolving, symbolic structure later to become of great emotional significance for medieval Europe. Among other repercussions, the figurative Tomb of Christ later became araison d’être for armies of pious Europeans embarking upon the various designed to “liberate” the “Holy Land” from its “” overlords (campaigns still very much on the minds of modern Moslems, some of whom still vigorously pursue their medieval jihad against the West).53 The manner of the crucial—even archetypal—inventio (dis- covery) by Constantine of the tomb of Christ, and its subsequent architectural embellishment with the Edicule, were described by Eusebius. As the Greek historian explained (Vita Constantini, III, 25), Constantine, “moved in spirit by the Savior himself,” and just as Otto III was to do centuries later, sought to find the long-lost loca- tion of a highly prized holy tomb. Specifically, Constantine “judged it incumbent on him to make the blessed locality of our Savior’s resurrection an object of attraction and veneration to all.” This momentous event is usually dated to the year 326. Immediately thereafter, states Eusebius (III, 33), to the west of Jerusalem, “the emperor now began to rear a monument to the Savior’s victory over death with rich and lavish magnificence. It may be that this was that second and new Jerusalem spoken of in the predictions of the proph- ets” (as described in Revelation 21). To fulfill these ends, Eusebius explains (III, 29) Constantine “commanded that a house of prayer worthy of the worship of God should be erected near [or alongside] the Savior’s tomb on a scale of rich and royal greatness.” This was just the first step in an architectural complex erected by the Emperor upon the Mount Golgotha. (see Fig. b above) The work ordered by Constantine proceeded in three stages (III, 34-40): First of all, then, he adorned the sacred cave itself, as the chief part of the whole work . . . . This monument [the Edicule: Fig. a-1], therefore, was first of all [to be built], as the chief part of the whole, [and it was] beautified with rare columns, and was profusely enriched with the most splendid decorations of every kind. The next object of his attention was a space of ground [di- 53 For some idea of the immense later cultural and artistic importance of the Holy Sep- ulcher, see Moffitt, “Anastasis-Templum” (with ample bibliography, and deriving much inspiration from the research of Juan Antonio Ramírez). Quidditas 30 (2009) 52

rectly east and adjacent to the tomb] of great extent, and open to the pure air of heaven. This atrium he adorned with a pavement of finely polished stone [Fig. a-3], and he had it enclosed on three sides with porticos of great length. At the side opposite to the cave [and the intervening atrium], which was located at the eastern side [of the complex], the church itself [the Martyrium; Fig. a-6] was erected. This was a noble work rising to a vast height, and of great extent, both in length and breadth.54 Stated concisely, Eusebius’s description of a typological three-part architectural complex, the tomb-atrium-commemorative church, and with these components being carefully aligned, and with all three parts running sequentially west-to-east, conforms ex- actly to what is known about the typology of the later architectural layout in Aachen in 1000 (see Figs. g, h above). This physical alignment between one symbolic structure (in Jerusalem) and another (in Aachen), with the latter deliberately rep- licating the former five hundred years later, makes perfect sense. In the two centuries preceding the dramatic epiphany of the sainted Charlemagne’s body in the year 1000, a considerable body of writ- ings appeared which attested to a direct relationship between Char- lemagne and the Holy Land. For example, around the year 968, the monk Benedict of Mount Soracte wrote an imaginative chronicle in which he pictured Charlemagne mounting an expedition to liberate Jerusalem from the , and the Moslem leader then makes the Frankish emperor the protector of the Holy Sepulcher at the very moment when he visits the tomb of Christ to pay homage.55 Accord- ing to another earlier (ca. 884), and more widely broadcast, account (Notker Balbulus’ De Carolo Magno, II, 9), Harun al-Rashid, the Abbasid Caliph (786-809), had voluntarily given Charlemagne ju- risdiction over the entire Holy Land.56 Writing earlier (ca. 829 and 836), Einhard was more explicit regarding Charlemagne’s sover- eignty over the Anastasis in Jerusalem (Vita Karoli Magni, II, 16): With Harun-al-Rashid, King of the Persians, who held almost the whole of the East in fee (always excepting India), Charle- magne was on such friendly terms that Harun valued his good- will more than the approval of all the other and princes 54 Eusebius, Nicene Fathers, v. I, 527-9. 55 Benedict, as cited in S. G. Nichols, Romanesque Signs: Early Medieval Narrative and Iconograph, (New Haven: Yale UP, 1983), 72.

56 Notker, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, 148. Quidditas 30 (2009) 53

in the entire world, and considered that he alone was worthy of being honored and propitiated with gifts. When Charlemagne’s messengers, whom he had sent with offerings to the most Holy Sepulcher of our Lord and Savior and to the place of His resur- rection, came to Harun and told him of their master’s intention, he not only granted all that was asked of him but he even went so far as to agree that this sacred scene of our redemption [the An- astasis] should be placed under Charlemagne’s own jurisdiction. Immediately after politically linking the Holy Sepulcher to the Frankish emperor, Einhard then sets about (II, 17) to describe the contemporary linkage, that is, Charlemagne’s own architectur- al projects, and “outstanding among these, one might claim, is the of the Holy Mother of God at Aachen [Pfalzkapelle], which is a really remarkable construction” (see again Figs. c, g, h above).57 Moreover, well known to the Carolingians would have been the schematic plan drawn in 670 by Alculph of the Holy Sep- ulcher; here Constantine’s Edicule (see Fig. e above) was expressly labeled a tegurium rotundum, a “circular shelter.”58 In the event, this distinctive terminology characterizing none other than Constan- tine’s Edicule now explains why the accounts of the discovery of the Karlsgrab in 1000 repeatedly described it as being a tugurium. A ground plan of the architectural ensemble designed by Constantine (dedicated 335) shows the Edicule (Fig. b-1) looked east across an atrium (Fig. b-3), 20 meters deep and called the “Court be- fore the Cross.” The atrium faced the Martyrium, a basilica erected over Mount Calvary (Fig. b-6).59 By this time, however, the Edicule had become covered over, and hidden by the towering Rotunda of the Anastasis (Fig. b-2), a domed structure over 20 meters in height. To sum up, it was at Golgotha that there was first set into place the archetypal three-part architectural scheme—the tomb-to--atrium-to- -commemorative church—that was to be piously repeated at Aachen half a millennium later (Figs. a, b, h). However, rather than the 57 Einhard, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, 70-1.. 58 See R. Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture’,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, V (1942), 1-33, Plate 2, fig. C, reproduc- ing Alculph’s plan of the Holy Sepulcher in 670. 59 For complete details on the Constantinian complex erected at Golgotha, see Biddle, The Tomb of Christ.. Quidditas 30 (2009) 54 gable-roofed Edicule (Fig. e), Adémar’s drawing of the Karlsgrab (Fig. c) shows the bulbous of the Rotunda (Fig. b-2) which covered the Edicule around 335; it was, in fact, typical of post-Car- olingian iconography to show the Anastasis as a domed structure60 To conclude, with this evidence in hand, we have a clearer understanding of the topographical and, more importantly, the deep- er Christological significance of the architectural features originally belonging to Charlemagne’s long-lost, and then “rediscovered” sep- ulcher in Aachen. Symbolically as well as physically, the Karlsgrab served to link the Emperor Constantine the Great to the Emperor Charles the Great and, in turn, Charles the Great to the imperial claims of the Ottonian .

Professor John Francis Moffitt (1940-2008) died on 1 June 2008 at his home in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Dr. Moffitt was Professor of Art History Emeritus at New Mexico State University. He published 20 books, hundreds of scholarly articles, and presented lectures across the U.S. and abroad. Professor Moffitt was born in San Francisco, earned his Bachelor of Fine Arts from the California College of Arts and Crafts (1962), and his Master of Arts in Art History from California State University, San Francisco (1963). He moved to Spain, earning a Diploma de Doctor (PhD.) in Art History from the Universidad de Madrid (1966). Spain remained a second home; he traveled there frequently. In 2007 he presented a lecture on the painting, Dama de Elche, a Spanish national icon, and the subject of his fourth book, “Art Forgery: The Case of the Lady of Elche” (1995). His many books reflect his eclectic scholarship. Among them: Spanish Painting (1973), O Brave New People: The European Invention of the American Indian (1996), Picturing Extraterrestrials: Alien Images in Modern Culture (2003), Alchemist of the Avant-Garde: The Case of Marcel Duchamp (2003), Caravaggio in Context: Learned Naturalism and Renaissance Humanism (2004), Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Painting, the Legend and Reality (2006), and The Arts in Spain: Ancient to Postmodern (1999, reprinted by Thames and Hudson, London, 2005). Moffitt also translated numerous works such as Juan Antonio Ramírez’s Architecture for the Screen: A Critical Study of Set Design in Holly- wood’s Golden Age (2004). Professor Moffitt also was an accomplished visual artist, whose work has been shown in more than two-dozen exhibitions coast-to-coast. His media included: oils, watercolors, drawings, and manipulated digital photographs, see www.starving-artists.net/~JackMoffitt.

60 On this iconographic distinction, see Moffitt, “Anastasis-Templum.” Quidditas 30 (2009) 55

Golden Reliquary Bust of Charlemagne (c. 1350 by An Unknown Goldsmith) Commissioned by Emperor Charles IV to House Charlemagne’s Skull